Acts 28
LenskiCHAPTER XXVIII
FROM MALTA TO ROME
Acts 28:1
1The terrible experience on the sea was over at last. Exhausted, dripping, yet glad to be alive, sailors, soldiers, prisoners, passengers dragged themselves onto the beach. And having gotten through safe, then we knew that the island was called Melite. And the barbarians went on showing us unusual kindness, for, kindling a fire, they took us all to themselves because of the present rain and because of the cold.
Not until this time did they know where they had been wrecked. Καλεῖται, “is called,” is retained in the indirect discourse. Μελίτη is correct, not Μελιτήνη, a clerical error. This is our present Malta with its great harbor Valetta. The author visited this harbor and had rough seas on leaving and only sailed past St. Paul’s Bay. Just how the sailors realized that they had been wrecked on Malta is not indicated. The fact that the inhabitants told them seems to be ruled out because they are not mentioned until the next sentence. Although Malta has been made important and populous by the British, even in ancient times it had trade, and its great harbor Valetta was known and often visited by sailors since it lay on the route of vessels bound for Rome.
Acts 28:2
2“The barbarians” means neither savages nor barbarous people. In the language of the day mankind was made up of three groups of people: Jews, Greeks, and barbarians. All who did not speak Greek but native languages were termed “barbarians” in the sense of foreign people. These Maltese were a colony of Phoenicians who thus spoke Punic. Yet we should not think that none of them were at least to some degree conversant with the Greek. As far as the Punic itself was concerned, its relation to Hebrew is close enough so that Paul who was master of Hebrew (as distinct from Aramaic) could understand and could make himself understood even without relying on such knowledge of the Greek as the natives may have had.
To the credit of these people Luke reports their unusual humanitarian kindness, Menschenfreundlichkeit, literally, “not the kindness that happens” right along. Παρεῖχον == “they went on furnishing” this exceptional kindness. To have 276 shipwrecked people suddenly thrust upon them during the wintry season with a storm still raging, in rain and cold, was no small visitation. Without hesitation “they took them to themselves.” “Us all,” Luke writes, stressing the great crowd. They took charge of the whole sorry lot and, in order to do what was most necessary first, kindled a great fire (πυρά is found only here and in the next verse in the New Testament) to help dry and warm them. The protracted gale must have brought much rain during the past fourteen days. It is not mentioned until now because it, together with the cold, was the reason for the kindling of the fire.
The second perfect participle ἐφεστῶτα, which is always used in the present sense, “standing upon them” == the “present” rain. We may think of some kind of shelter under which the fire was made. Luke restricts himself to this evidence of humaneness because of what follows and leaves it to his reader to think of further kindness, for the shipload of 276 persons remained among the natives for about three months and needed practically everything that was necessary for their sustenance.
Acts 28:3
3Now Paul having packed together some pile of brushwood and having placed it on the fire, a viper, on coming out from the heat, fastened to his hand. And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging from his hand they went on to say to each other, Surely, this man is a murderer whom, though brought to safety out of the sea, justice did not let live! Now he, having shaken the beast off into the fire, suffered no harm. But they were expecting him presently to swell or to fall down suddenly dead; but expecting (this) for a long while and beholding nothing amiss occurring to him, having changed their minds, they went on to say that he was a god.
It is worth noting that Paul is among those who gather fuel for the fire. It was a sensible procedure to keep bestirring oneself in such a wet and cold condition, but it also reveals the spirit of the man. See him with a big lot of brushwood (the plural φρύγανα) in his arms, placing it upon the fire! Just such traits help to reveal his greatness. Somehow there was a viper among the wood that was burning, whether among the brush Paul had brought or in some other. Torpid from the cold, on getting warm it became active and struck its poisonous fangs into Paul’s hand.
The claim is made that Malta has no woods and has no vipers or poisonous snakes but only a small non-poisonous constrictor, that clings and bites. Hence Luke’s story is not true. Until recent years wood was found at St. Paul’s Bay; in 1853 Lewing believed he saw a viper near this very bay. But the population is now 1, 200 to the square mile, which means that woods and poisonous snakes may have disappeared.
Acts 28:4
4The viper hung from Paul’s hand; all of the natives saw it hanging there. It had struck its fangs into the hand. It did not merely coil around the hand so that some might think the fangs were inserted, while in reality they were not. Take the miracle out of this record and a pointless story is left. But these natives saw what they saw, and not only they, for Luke mentions them only because of what they said. The imperfect ἔλεγον (again in v. 6) describes instead of merely stating the fact. And these natives knew the full effect of a viper’s strike, knew it from sad experiences in their own midst. On vipers compare Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7; Matt. 12:34; 23:33.
Here we have a case of the natural sense of justice even among heathen men, conscience is still working in them. They are sure that crime is overtaken by retribution, and that this retribution often comes in a strikingly visible manner. These natives spoke in Punic, which Paul understood. But they probably did not speak at this moment but afterward; at this time they most likely just whispered to each other and eyed each other significantly. ΙΙάντως, “looking at this in every way” = “certainly.” They were sure that Paul (dieser Mensch) was a murderer and mentioned this crime as being most worthy of the doom of death. Although he had been brought to safety out of the sea (concessive participle), justice did not let him live, the aorist speaking of Paul as already being virtually dead.
Perhaps we may capitalize “Justice” as being personified, but it was scarcely a pagan deity that was worshiped on the island; it is enough to think of “justice” in the abstract sense. The idea is that justice always claims its victim; one may escape it now and again, in the end escape is hopeless. Justice works in its own strange and mysterious ways; one can never tell just when and how it reaches its victim. We should not call this superstition. Superstition is mentioned later and in a different way. To this day men know the workings of justice, in fact, cannot escape thinking of them.
Acts 28:5
5Ὁμὲνοὗν is balanced by the following οἱδέ, and οὗν returns to Paul after telling about the natives. Paul just flipped the viper into the fire and suffered no ill consequences whatever, the aorist expressing the permanent fact.
Acts 28:6
6What the natives expected was that he would presently swell as a result of the poison, or that he would suddenly fall down dead. Μέλλειν is to be construed with both infinitives and expresses what was impending: “him about to be swelling or falling suddenly.” They kept looking for either result to occur at any moment. In their experience this had always come about without much delay. The imperfect “were expecting” conveys the idea that in this case the expected did not eventuate.
For a long while they kept on expecting and yet observing “not a thing amiss happening to him.” This was a marvel in their eyes. It was, as we know, a manner of fulfillment of the promise of Jesus stated in Mark 16:18, and in Luke 10:19. The miracle was wrought by the Lord in the interest of the gospel. Paul would remain in Malta only three months. Although 276 were cast on the island, the Lord at once directed the fullest attention to this one man Paul. In his own miraculous way even on this mere island the Lord opened the door for the apostle. It is for this reason that Luke makes a record of the miracle.
After waiting until their own expectation was completely dead, the natives finally turned their thoughts completely around. Μεταβαλόμενοι is the second aorist participle, and properly so, since the change of mind was one act. Since deadly serpent poison had no effect whatever on Paul, these pagan natives knew only one alternative, they declared “him to be a god,” i. e., some one of their gods appearing in human form. This was a strange repetition of Acts 14:11, 12. And here is where we find the superstition above referred to.
Now what did Paul do to correct these natives? How did he succeed, and what happened? Has not Luke written enough about Paul so that we may answer these questions ourselves? Although he was a prisoner, Paul did much for the gospel in Malta. Luke gives us just a glimpse. Paul reached even the headman on the island and many others besides, for the door had been opened to him at once.
Acts 28:7
7Now in the neighborhood of that place estates belonged to the Protos of the island by name Publius, who, having received us, lodged us in friendly-minded manner for three days.
Ἐντοῖςπερὶτὸντόπονἐκεῖνον, “in those (parts) around that place,” i. e., in the neighborhood of the locality where the natives had first tried to help the shipwrecked crowd. The χωρία· (plural) were estates, perhaps an extensive villa with other buildings. They belonged to the ΙΙρῶτος of the island, and this was his official title as the governor under the prætor of Sicily, to whose jurisdiction Malta belonged somewhat as Judea belonged to Syria. The reality of this title is established by a Phœnician-Greek inscription bearing the Greek title ΙΙρῶτοςΜελιταίων. This Protōs was the Sicilian prætor’s representative or legate, one of the permanent residents who had been appointed to this office. “Publius” was his praenomen, and its use by Luke in place of the cognomen may indicate the intimate relation with the man into which Paul and his companions came.
As is so often the case, here, too, the relative has demonstrative force: “it was he who,” no less a person than he. We understand ἡμᾶς to include the entire 276. That is why his “estates” are mentioned. He found room to lodge and to feed the entire number; and he did this “in friendly-minded manner,” in the same spirit which the natives had manifested (v. 2), and for three days, i. e., until other provisions were arranged for the prolonged, enforced stay. The wreck occurred in the early morning, and the three days must have begun with that day. Luke wants us to understand that this was a noble act on the part of Publius although as the governor of the island he, no doubt, felt it incumbent upon himself to take care of the personnel of a government grain ship and of the soldiers of the emperor.
Acts 28:8
8Now it was that the father of Publius was lying afflicted with fever attacks and dysentery, to whom Paul entering in and, on having prayed, healed him by laying on his hands.
This case was serious, for the man was lying completely prostrated, afflicted (M.-M.) with fevers (plural, fever attacks that recurred) and dysentery (our very word which is derived from the Greek itself). The claim that this ailment is unknown on Malta is unwarranted, for it occurs everywhere. When feverish conditions develop, the patient may easily lose his life.
Here we have an instance in which the first participle is used with almost the force of a finite verb, for “to whom” applies only to Paul’s going in and not to the act of healing, which has its own pronoun. Paul evidently asked to see the sick man and so went in to him. Many interpreters pass lightly by Paul’s praying as if this conveyed nothing special regarding Paul and the miracle, as if it was similar to a pastor’s prayer for the sick. But Paul prayed exactly as Peter did in 9:40 (see that passage) in order to learn the Lord’s will concerning this desperately sick man. The apostles never healed at will; they performed miracles only on the Lord’s or the Spirit’s intimation. So here Paul prayed not for the sick man but for himself: did the Lord intend to heal this man through Paul or did he not?
And the Lord directed Paul to heal. Forthwith the miracle was wrought. The laying on of hands (see 6:6) accompanied this act as in so many instances recorded regarding Jesus. The Lord was furthering Paul’s work in Malta.
Acts 28:9
9And when this was done, also the rest, those in the island having diseases, proceeded to come and to be cured; who also honored us with many honors, and they added for us on putting to sea the things for our needs.
In view of the rest of Acts it is impossible to believe that on Malta only miracles were wrought and that no gospel was preached in connection with them. What happened as a result of the shipwreck was that the gospel with its great seal of miracles was spread through the island. Paul could, of course, not go about, being a prisoner; so the miracle caused the people voluntarily to come to the place where he was. The two imperfects describe what occurred continually. We have no report on the part of Luke and no other record of a church in Malta except the tradition that Publius became the first bishop. The gospel never returns void.
Malta could be no exception. Neither here nor anywhere else does Luke even intimate that he himself also wrought miracles. To say that “he no doubt had his share in the cures” by working miracles or by using his medical skill, is without warrant.
Acts 28:10
10The benefactions that came to them through Paul (Luke and Aristarchus helping him with the preaching and the teaching) evoked the strongest gratitude. “They honored us with many honors.” Luke uses the personal pronoun freely in this last “we” section, beginning with 27:1, sometimes with reference to Paul, himself, and Aristarchus alone (some think the latter went only as far as Myra, 27:5), again with reference to all the voyagers. Here the context suggests that “us” is to be taken in the narrow sense. What the “honors” were is not specified. But when they put to sea again, the grateful people supplied them with all that they needed for the further voyage. We take ἐπέθεντο to mean, “they added”; the A. V. is better than the R.
V. on this point. We find it misleading when R., W. P., intimates that “honors” has the sense of payment for professional services, honorarium. When did an apostle ever regard his healings as “professional services” or accept an honorarium?
Acts 28:11
11Now after three months we put to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island, an Alexandrian one, with the sign Dioscuri. And having been brought down to Syracuse, we remained there for three days; whence, on having gone around, we arrived at Rhegium, and after one day a south wind having come on, we came on the second day to Puteoli, where, on finding brethren, we were urged to remain with them for seven days. And thus we came to Rome.
The regular shipping season opened on March the tenth (see 18:18). Some think that the start from Malta was made a little earlier, but Luke is not concerned about fixing the exact day. The Alexandrian ship had wintered in the grand harbor of Valetta, which is now heavily fortified by Britain and enclosed by heights, all save the entrance. This Alexandrian ship was quite likely also a government grain vessel. Whether the entire 276 took passage on this ship or only the centurion with his soldiers and his prisoners is left undetermined.
This is the only vessel whose name Luke records: “Dioscuri,” Διός (genitive of Ζεύς) plus κόροι = “boys of Zeus” (the Attic used the dual form, the Koine the plural), meaning the twins, Castor and Pollux, born to Leda. These two were the tutelary gods of sailors, and their images were either painted or carved on both sides of the prow; παρασήμῳ (either a noun or an adjective) is like the appositional name in the dative because of the construction after ἐν although the vessel’s name might have been given in the nominative. Ramsay thinks that Luke has given this vessel’s name because on previous voyages he saw the names of the ships for the first time when he embarked in them, but in this case he heard the name long before embarkation. On the verb “put to sea” and its opposite see 13:13.
Acts 28:12
12The run of eighty miles to Syracuse on the east of Sicily was accomplished without incident. In regard to the history that makes this harbor interesting see Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul, and other writers. This reference applies also to the other localities and to their histories. Why the vessel remained for three days, whether Paul went ashore, and what the tradition is worth that he founded the church in Syracuse, are questions on which Luke does not offer a hint.
Acts 28:13
13Two uncials read περιελόντες (αἱρέω), which is thought to mean, “having cast off”; but even if we supply the noun “anchors,” as we have it in 27:40, this reading is unsatisfactory. ΙΙεριελθόντες, “having gone around,” is correct and means, “by tacking” we arrived at Rhegium, on the toe-tip of Italy, the city whose tutelary gods were the same Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux. Only by tacking were these seventy miles negotiated.
Here, however, after a wait of one day, the south wind began to blow, the very wind that was needed to get safely through the Straits of Messina. The very next day they were ably aided by this most favorable wind in making the 182 miles to Puteoli, the magnificent harbor of Naples, Puteoli lying on its northern side eight miles from Naples. Paul thus saw three famous volcanoes, Aetna on the island of Sicily, and after passing the straits, Stramboli rising like a cone out of the Mediterranean, and Vesuvius near Naples. They still stand out in the writer’s memory, for he saw them on his voyage from Naples to Malta. At Paul’s time, however, Vesuvius was inactive, and its westward slopes were covered with vines; at that time no one dreamed that in but a few years (A. D. 79) a ruin similar to that which came upon Sodom and Gomorrah would descend upon the fair cities about its base. During this awful eruption Drusilla, the wife of Felix, and their son were destroyed.
Puteoli was one of the great harbors for ships coming from Alexandria. Luke’s exactness has been remarked, for the old sailing vessels would require just about twenty-four to twenty-six hours with a good south wind in making a straight run. The Greek uses the plural adjective: we “as second-day people,” instead of the adverb, “on the second day.”
Acts 28:14
14It is not a surprise that Paul found “brethren” at Puteoli. A strong colony of Jews lived here; the distance to Rome was not great. Christianity naturally spread in various directions from Rome. “We were urged to remain with them for seven days” is concise for the urging to stay as long as possible; the time was extended seven days by permission of the centurion. The idea does not commend itself that the centurion left Paul in charge of a few soldiers in Puteoli for a week while he and the other soldiers took the other prisoners on to Rome; for on his arrival in Rome he had to turn over all his prisoners with all documents relative to them plus his own complete report. One does not see how he could have left Paul behind. Yet Luke’s aorist “we were urged” implies that this urging brought about the stay of a week; and we must note that “we” includes the entire party, the centurion as well as Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus, Let us take it as a signal favor to Paul that the centurion delayed so long in Puteoli.
He regarded Paul as the one who had saved his life and surely was attracted to the apostle for other personal reasons. Luke leaves this to his reader’s inference in an account which, in these last two chapters, quietly but plainly reveals the full power of the apostle’s wonderful personality.
“Thus,” after this gracious delay of a whole week in Puteoli, “we came to Rome.” The emphasis is on the adverb “thus” and not on the phrase. It conveys the idea that, although months had been required for the voyage from Caesarea to Rome, the centurion did not now hurry Paul onward. Because the arrival in Rome is again mentioned in v. 16, some let the two statements say different things—an unnecessary effort. In v. 16 the clause is of minor import and merely resumes v. 14. The idea that in v. 14 “to Rome” means “Rome” in a wide sense, including the entire territory of the city, the whole ager Romanus, “the state Rome,” while in v. 16 “to Rome” means “the walls of Rome,” is supposition. No reader would discover that the same phrase had such diverse meanings. Moreover, Luke has done this before, taking us to the goal and then adding something that transpired on the way.
Paul is reaching his great goal Rome. This getting to Rome is also the climax of Acts. Luke has every reason to emphasize this fact by a repetition. In regard to the journey overland to Rome with all the old historical ornamentation read Conybeare and How-son (above), chapter XXIV.
Acts 28:15
15And from thence the brethren, having heard the things concerning us, came for meeting with us as far as Appii Forum and Three Taverns; whom having seen, Paul, giving thanks to God, took courage.
It was a distance of 125 miles from Puteoli to Rome. The brethren who came to Appii Forum went some forty miles, about one-half of the distance; those who stopped at Three Taverns went thirty miles, one-fourth of the distance. We need not wonder how word got to Rome during the week of Paul’s stay in Puteoli. This city was on one of the great Roman roads that had heavy traffic of all kinds: “We are on the most crowded approach to the metropolis of the world, in the midst of prætors and proconsuls, embassies, legions, and turms of horse, ‘to their provinces hasting or on return,’ which Milton, in his description of the city enriched with the spoils of nations, has called us to ‘behold’ in various habits on the Appian Road.” It was a very simple matter to send word to Rome.
This action on the part of the Christians in Rome, delegations coming out thirty and forty miles to meet Paul, is exceedingly significant. They had heard τὰπερὶἡμῖν, “all about us,” and that brought them to meet and to greet the great apostle. The fact that he was a prisoner for the sake of the gospel increased their estimation of him. We know, of course, how brethren loved to go great distances with Paul when he bade them good-by—some Bereans went all the way to Athens. But here they come out to meet him and to bring him in, and two delegations at that, the one either starting sooner than the other or traveling at a faster pace and thus meeting Paul the sooner. We take it that both delegations were numerous as, indeed, the church in Rome was not small.
Three years before this time Paul had sent his great epistle to Rome by the hands of Phœbe. A number of brethren who had known Paul were now in Rome. They were most likely also a part of these delegations that came out to meet him. Paul was the first apostle to reach Rome. The church in Rome had been founded long before this time. Christians who found each other in the capital had just gotten together and established a congregation in this great center. Peter got to Rome after Paul had been there. No event as great as this coming of Paul’s to Rome had transpired in the history of the church. No wonder that we hear about these delegations. Ἄχρις marks the points to which they came.
The Forum of Appius was named after the Censor Appius Claudius who built this part of “the queen of roads” in 312 B. C. Paul most probably reached the Appian Way at Capua. Appii Forum was a rough place; R., W. P., reports that it was the haunt of thieves, thugs, and swindlers. If Paul was happily surprised at meeting a delegation from Rome so far from the city, what were his feelings when he met another ten miles farther on at Three Taverns?
This was only a village on the Appian Way. The centurion’s party traveled afoot, and it must have taken some five days in getting to Rome. Paul did not travel that distance in chains. See the discussion in 25:23, and again in 26:29. Add all that we have seen of the fine treatment accorded to Paul by this centurion. The fact that Paul was a Roman would keep him free from chains although there is much to be added.
After 22:25 we do not read about a chain until in 28:20, which see.
Luke writes that when Paul saw these delegations “thanking God, he took courage.” Paul’s heart was too devoted to the gospel to lead us to think that Luke implies that he thought only of himself. Since he had landed in Puteoli and found brethren there he had no special cause for discouragement. He certainly had not forgotten the Lord’s promise that, as he had testified at Jerusalem, so also he would have to testify in Rome (23:11). He now thanked God and took courage because in these delegations from Rome he saw how the Lord was beginning to prepare the way for him that, although a prisoner, he might, nevertheless, do his part in bearing witness in Rome. In a few days the Lord’s guidance in this matter was fully revealed: Paul was able to testify daily for two years.
Acts 28:16
16And when we came into Rome, it was permitted to Paul to stay by himself with the soldier guarding him.
All that Luke says is that the authorities at Rome treated Paul with great consideration. Since all the other prisoners had already been sentenced to death they were confined in the castra, παρεμβολή, i. e., barracks of soldiers, but Paul was granted permission to live by himself, in his own rented house, with only a soldier to guard him until his case could be disposed of. This statement confines itself to the main fact, the mild form of the custodia militaris. The soldier guard was changed at regular intervals so that during the space of two years Paul became acquainted with many of these men. Phil. 1:13 shows that the impression made upon these men was far-reaching. While Paul was confined to his dwelling, many kept coming to him daily, which enabled him to keep on testifying, and each soldier guard heard everything that was said during his hours on duty, to say nothing about the conversations which Paul had with such individual guards.
What has caused the main discussion in regard to this passage is the poorly attested reading which inserts: “The centurion delivered the prisoners to the στρατοπεδάρχης.” This seems to be a comment which the A. V. regards as a part of the text. Now it is undoubtedly correct that the centurion completed his commission by turning over his prisoners to the imperial officer and not to the emperor Nero in person, who certainly would not himself attend to such minor matters. The centurion would hand over the documents regarding the prisoners which had been entrusted to him by Festus in Caesarea. At the same time he would make a complete report on his voyage, including all that we know about Paul’s actions. We lack all knowledge as to what Festus finally put into his report to the emperor’s court, but he could not have reported anything resembling a serious charge.
Paul, moreover, was a Roman. Add the centurion’s favorable account, and we see why Paul was treated so mildly until his case could be considered.
But who was this officer to whom the centurion reported and who gave Paul this permission? We have already answered this question in connection with 27:1. It was the praefectus praetorio (or praetorii), in the Greek the στρατοπεδάρχης (or -ος). Under Tiberius and during the first years of the reign of Claudius and again during the last years of Nero’s rule there were two such commanders of the Prætorian Guards, but during the years 51–62, which period includes the time of Paul’s arrival at Rome, there was only one, Sex. Afranius Burrus, an excellent man, who was very influential in young Nero’s court. From what is known it does not seem likely that Nero himself handled the cases of appeal, but that Burrus was delegated to do this (Zahn, Apostelgeschichte 851, etc.).
Claudius attended to these duties in person. These findings rest on such evidence as there is; even the variant reading has the singular. The barracks of the Prætorians were located at the Porta Viminalis in the northeast part of the city. Paul was brought in through the Porta Capena and thus passed through the busy part of Rome. From the time of Tiberius until that of Vespasian the Prætorian Guards consisted of nine cohorts of 1, 000 men each (Zahn, Introduction I, 554).
We assume that Luke and Aristarchus lived in the same house with Paul. It seems to have been spacious enough to receive many visitors. We can only surmise who paid the rent. We note the gifts received from the Philippians through Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25; 4:10–14). Many Christians from the Orient visited Paul, brethren who had stood near to the apostle and loved him. Here he wrote his letters to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, etc. He was a busy man during these years, and his work began at once.
PAUL IN ROME
Acts 28:17
17Luke might have added v. 30, 31 or their substance and thus brought his record to a close. The reader notes that the intervening section, v. 17–28, does no more than to state how Paul established contact with the many Jews at Rome. Yet v. 17–28 is a vital part of Acts. It states far more than that Paul finally arrived in Rome where he then spent two whole years. Acts describes how the gospel moved from Jerusalem to Rome. This was not accomplished by the mere fact that Paul reached Rome.
The main point is that this apostle performed a most important work among the Jews in Rome, the capital of the world. See the exposition of Acts 23:11. Paul had attempted to do work among the Jews in Jerusalem, but without success (Acts 9:26–30). The Lord appointed him to do the great work among the Jews in Rome. In a few years Jerusalem would be destroyed, not one stone would be left upon another; but here in Rome, in the very capital of the destroyers of Jerusalem, a multitude of converted Jews, whole synagogues, were to continue. Thus from Jerusalem the church moved to Rome in the person of these converted Jews—by the work of Paul.
The importance of this section at the close of Acts is thus evident.
And it came to pass that after three days he called together to himself those that were foremost of the Jews. Now, they having come together, he proceeded to say to them: I, men and brethren, though having done nothing adverse to the people or to the customs, those pertaining to the fathers, was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans, who, having judicially examined me, were resolving to release me for the reason that no cause for death existed in my case. But the Jews objecting, I was forced to appeal to Caesar, not (however) as having anything whereof to accuse my nation. For this cause, therefore, I called you her to see and to speak with you, for on account of the hope of Israel I bear on me this chain.
The immediate task was to find a proper house and to rent it, to get the necessary furniture, etc. That took three days. We should not think that Paul thereupon first formed contact with the Jews and did not form contact with the Christians until later. The contact with all the foremost Christians had already been made when these went to meet Paul at Appii Forum and at Three Taverns and traveled with him the last two days of his journey. That was loving contact, indeed. So now the apostle thinks about the Jews.
The middle implies that he called them together to or for himself, and call together is correct, for we have a record of no less than eleven synagogues in Rome, and there may have been even more. “Those being foremost of the Jews” (the participle is placed correctly, R. 777) are their leading men, a few from each synagogue. Christian friends at Rome very likely helped Paul to draw up a list and then went to these Jews with the apostle’s invitation, he being a prisoner. So they came together, and with ἔλεγε, the imperfect, Luke describes how Paul proceeded to address them. Introductions were, of course, in order as the men arrived singly or in groups, and Paul’s statement to them was made after all were assembled.
This statement is a brief account of Paul’s present status, firsthand information from Paul himself in regard to his being brought to Rome as a prisoner. It is made solely for the purpose of giving information. On the address “men and brethren” see 1:16; the apostles always used it when addressing Jews. Ἐγώ is emphatic and forward because these Jews needed to be informed in regard to Paul: “I, as far as I am concerned.”
“As having done nothing adverse or hostile to the people (λαός meaning the Jewish people) or to the customs pertaining to the fathers (meaning the religious practices derived from the fathers of ancient Israel),” I was delivered as a prisoner. It is an understatement because, when Paul was arrested, he was engaged in one of these very customs (21:23, etc.). Understatements such as this—we find them frequently—are most wise. When a man claims too much, especially in his own case, he is doubted in regard to all that he may say; but when he claims less than he might he is the more readily believed. This is something that many forget. These Jews soon learned the full details in regard to what Paul was doing in the Temple when the Asiatic Jews caused the awful riot on the basis of their utterly baseless surmise.
Paul says that he was delivered as a prisoner “from Jerusalem” (not “in”) into the hands of the Romans and thereby refers to his transfer to Caesarea under Felix. “Romans” is the right word, for he was a prisoner of the Roman authorities.
Acts 28:18
18We have more than the ordinary relative οἵ, for οἵτινες == “who were such as.” Paul summarizes the judicial examinations to which he was subjected (note ἀνάκρισις, the noun, the examination Festus asked Agrippa to make, 25:26). The imperfect ἐβούλοντο, “they were resolving” (A. V. is again better than the R. V.), conveys the idea that this resolution was not carried out. Διά with the substantivized infinitive states the reason why the Romans wanted to release Paul: “because that no cause for death (no crime of that nature) existed in my case (ἐνἐμοί, see R. 587, paragraph 6).” Paul says only, “no capital crime,” but the willingness “to release” him implies that also no lesser crime could be charged against him, one deserving “bonds,” imprisonment (23:29; 26:31).
Acts 28:19
19But “the Jews” objected, which refers to those in authority, Sanhedrists, the present participle denoting continued objection. Then in order to end the matter (that expressed in the imperfect ἐβούλοντο and in the present participle, the two actions that were hanging fire) Paul made his appeal to Cæsar. But he at once adds that this was not done “as having something for which to accuse his nation.” These Jews in Rome might leap to the conclusion that Paul had this intention. Charges against procurators and against officials were often lodged with the emperor. And Paul certainly could have lodged charges against the Sanhedrists. He does not by any means exonerate them, he says only that he made his appeal to Cæsar without such an intent.
Acts 28:20
20Οὗν refers to the result. So Paul is now here in Rome on this appeal of his. And for this reason he invited all the Jewish leaders in Rome in order to see them himself and to talk to them himself so that they might get everything at firsthand and not in some garbled manner in a roundabout way. But all this is not done because of Paul’s personal interest. Why should he trouble all these leading Jews in Rome with that? With γάρ Paul introduces the real reason that he tells them about himself; it is “on account of the hope of Israel that I bear this chain.” We have Paul’s own commentary regarding this “hope” in 23:6; 24:15; 26:6, 7.
It is the promise of Moses and the prophets (26:22), the resurrection of the Messiah which was fulfilled in Jesus, against which the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin raged, which the Pharisees, however, also firmly held (23:6–9). It was because of this very heart of the gospel that Paul was a prisoner. Because the gospel with its crown of hope was so bound up with Paul’s arrest and appeal to Cæsar he wanted no misunderstanding regarding it among the Jewish leaders in Rome lest the gospel cause receive damage through false reports. Note that περίκειμαι is used as the passive of περιτίθημι (R. 815), the accusative of the thing is retained from the active of the latter verb (R. 816); all of which the English cannot duplicate or imitate: “I have lying around (my wrist) this chain.”
See v. 15 in regard to Paul’s having been chained previous to this time. When Burrus (v. 16) placed him into this mildest form of military custody by permitting him to live in his own house with only a single soldier to guard him, this Præfect, the emperor’s direct representative, ordered that Paul be fastened to the soldier guard with a chain. It was done as a simple precaution, to obviate the necessity of increasing the guard. Also, and this is often overlooked by those who have Paul in “chains” (nearly always plural) since in his fright Lysias removed the two with which he had fettered Paul (21:33; 22:29), the order of Burrus was something entirely different from chaining as carried out by other magistrates, all of whom dared place no fetters on a Roman. Roman law forbade that. The confusion on this point needs clearing up, and the assumption that, because Paul was chained to a soldier in Rome, he had been in chains since Lysias transferred him to Felix, is without warrant.
Acts 28:21
21And they said to him: We for our part neither received writings concerning thee from the Jews, nor did one of the brethren, on getting here, report or tell anything wicked concerning thee. But we deem it proper to hear from thee what thou thinkest, for as concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere.
The emphatic ἡμεῖς, “we for our part,” matches Paul’s emphatic ἐγώ. We need not discuss the question as to whether the Sanhedrists had been able to send letters or documents to the Jews at Rome prior to the time of Paul’s arrival, when we consider the difficulties Paul had encountered on his voyage. The fact is, the Sanhedrists did not pursue the matter any farther. As a body they themselves were divided in regard to Paul (23:6–9) and thus could take no united action; moreover, they had already failed twice, in the case of both Felix and Festus. All the leading Jews thus state that they are without official information about Paul and his difficulty with the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem.
But they are also without private information. No Jewish brother, “on getting here,” (παραγενόμενος) has made a private report in any synagogue or has talked in private Jewish circles concerning anything wicked in regard to Paul. ΙΙονηρόν is more than “harm” (our versions), it denotes something vicious or wicked, actively so. We take it that this statement covers the whole period of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea (two years), for the participle refers to actual arrivals in Rome of individual Jews from Jerusalem, and there had been not a few such arrivals. Some of the many Jews residing in Rome had certainly gone to the great festivals and returned, and others had come to Rome from abroad. The statement is thus rather important. After the riot precipitated by the Asiatic Jews (21:27, etc.), and after Paul was rushed to Caesarea, the Sanhedrists who were opposed to Paul had not advertised their opposition in Jerusalem.
Their two attempts against Paul in Caesarea before Felix and before Festus had not become known. The Jews in Rome had heard nothing.
Acts 28:22
22But these admissions pertained only to what Paul had just told them in regard to his arrest and his appeal to Cæsar. These prominent Jews in Rome had a general knowledge in regard to Paul, had probably heard much about him and his work. We note how, on Paul’s invitation, they had at once come to him. So they say that they deem it worth-while (ἀξιοῦμεν) to hear from him himself what he holds in his mind, what his ideas and convictions are. Not, however, as though they as yet knew nothing on that score; what makes it seem proper for them to hear Paul is the fact that “this sect” (see 24:5) is spoken against everywhere. They mean “everywhere” among Jews; they are not thinking of Gentiles as some suppose.
We are warranted in concluding that no apostle and, in fact, no outstanding exponent of Christianity (such as Apollos, for instance) had as yet appeared in Rome. Paul is the first to appear, and his great reputation has preceded him. We conclude furthermore that no special mission work had as yet been attempted in the synagogues of Rome. All these prominent Jews deem it worth-while to come and to hear Paul expound his teaching to them. We know that in all the cities in whose synagogues Paul had preached sometimes a decisive schism had been very soon effected, and the unbelieving Jews turned to vicious and implacable hostility. Nothing similar to this is evident in Rome on Paul’s arrival. All these leading Jews are ready to hear the apostle.
We finally conclude that the Christian congregation at Rome had quietly organized itself through the believers’ just getting together of themselves without a clash with the synagogues. No conflict had taken place, no Jewish persecution had flared up. These leading Jews looked only askance at the Christians, knew only that the Jews in all other cities spoke against the Christians. This is a situation that is entirely new in the story of Acts and is most interesting on that account. It promises at least something. Paul finds a great work to do.
Although he is the special apostle to the Gentiles, this work inviting him is to be done among Jews. In other places the work always began with the Jews before a Christian congregation could be formed. Here in Rome matters are reversed: a strong Christian congregation already exists, yet the Jewish work is not done. We must, however, not expect too much; these leading Jews look at “this sect” as one that is everywhere spoken against. Paul must know that this fact counts heavily with them. His work will be uphill.
Acts 28:23
23And having appointed a day for him, there came to his lodging even more, to whom he proceeded to expound, earnestly testifying regarding the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets from morning until evening. And some were being persuaded by the things said, but some were unbelieving.
It surely says much concerning Paul that these leading Jews, after hearing Paul’s story about his imprisonment, appointed a day when they would hear him at length on the great subject of the gospel of Christ. Although the church had existed in Rome for so many years, these Jews had not as yet been fully confronted with the gospel. Paul has been there only three days, and the beginning of this great and most necessary work has already been made. Let us not charge the Christians at Rome with negligence. Think of the difficulty of the task, the power and the ability required to do it in the proper way. God has his man for it, he had brought him in his own good time, it is now that he sends the hour of grace to the Jews in Rome. ΙΙλείονες means that even more came on the appointed day than had come in answer to Paul’s first invitation.
Textual evidence is divided between the aorist ἦλθον and the imperfect ἦκον, the former stating only the fact, “they came,” the latter being descriptive. We must note that all of the main verbs that follow in the narrative (not, of course, in the quotation from Isaiah and in Paul’s final word) are imperfects, all of them being descriptive of the actions, all of them unrolling the scene like a moving picture. If the first main verb were an aorist, this would constitute an exception. Moreover, ἦλθον would be the common verb, ἦκον one that is more unusual which was likely exchanged for the other by some scribe. We see the reason that a special day was appointed. The Jews probably came in the afternoon in answer to that first invitation.
Paul wanted an entire day, “from morning (early) until evening.” While the foremost Jews had come on that first day, their number probably did not include all the men of importance. Rabbis of learning and importance who had been absent from the first meeting were also desired even by Paul himslf. On the day appointed they were all on hand—a most notable gathering, indeed!
Paul’s rented house was certainly filled to capacity. He was face to face with the entire Jewish leadership of the capital of the world. God wanted a man like Paul for this. One wonders about the Roman soldier to whom the apostle was chained, the one pagan witness to this great conference. It was also his hour of grace. What did he report about it to the other soldiers and to his superior officer after he was relieved and returned to the Prætorian barracks?
Luke records only the subject and the general line of thought of that day’s discussion. Paul “proceeded to expound” (imperfect). The two present participles are just as descriptive as the imperfect. Both participles expand the imperfect tense of the main verb. The three form a close unit. Paul’s work during that whole day was a setting forth (ἐκτίθημι), but with most earnest personal testifying (διά in the participle for earnestness) and with loving persuasion.
That was Paul’s way of dealing with all Jews, but Luke records it here because of the great occasion. His was apostolic testimony (26:16). When we copy Paul’s method of expounding, testifying, persuading, we can testify only in a limited way, on the basis of Christian experience and not on the basis of direct vision of Jesus and a direct revelation to us. All that we can do with the apostolic testimony is what alone Paul could do with Moses and the prophets, namely expound it.
On the kingdom see 1:3. Paul testified about the whole rule of God’s grace, that rule which culminates in glory, in which he made Jesus both Prince and Savior (5:31), both Lord and Christ (4:36). It was the entire plan of salvation. The Jews had it in “the law of Moses and in the prophets.” This expression refers to the entire Old Testament which is so commonly called “Moses and the prophets.” It is here that Paul’s persuading of the Jews concerning Jesus comes in. He attempted to move them to accept what Moses and the prophets had foretold and what had been fulfilled so completely in Jesus, in his sacrificial death, in his glorious resurrection, and in his eternal exaltation. The appeal was most effective in the case of Jews who lived in their glorious Scriptures.
Acts 28:24
24Here Luke might have used aorists when reporting the final outcome, namely, that some were actually persuaded, some not. But he continues with descriptive imperfects because the outcome of this day’s work was not complete at the end of this day. Paul scored a great success, but what he had said this day continued to work for a much longer time. It was not a matter of the Jewish leaders alone but of all Judaism in Rome. What Luke presents is the fact that the things Paul was saying (note that this is a present participle and not an aorist) were making some nod their heads in assent while others were shaking their heads in incredulity. And he leaves it at that.
Paul had started on his great success, and it was only a question as to how far it would extend. And Luke writes οἱμέν—οἱδέ, “some—some,” and not, “a few—but most.” He certainly does not overstate. Paul won perhaps half of these Jewish leaders on that first day, probably more than half. Imagine what that means to the Jews in Rome; a stream of them would pour into the Christian Church. Here we see what the Lord had in mind when he told Paul: “Thou must bear witness also at Rome” (23:11).
Acts 28:25
25“From early until evening” sounds as though there was no interruption for eating food; all were so taken up with what Paul was presenting. And being disagreed with each other, they were withdrawing after Paul spoke one word: Well did the Holy Spirit make utterance through Isaiah, the prophet, to your fathers, saying:
Go to this people and say:
By hearing you shall hear and in no wise understand;
And seeing you shall see and shall in no wise perceive.
For this people’s heart did become thickened,
And with their ears they heard heavily,
And their eyes they closed
Lest, perhaps, they perceive with their eyes
And with their ears hear
And with their heart understand
And turn again,
And I heal them.
Be it therefore known to you that to the Gentiles this saving thing of God was commissioned; they on their part, too, will hear.
Ὄντες only describes and does not state a cause. They did not leave because they were disagreed, as though they would otherwise not have left. They were leaving while they were disagreed with each other. Since this is evident already in v. 24, its being stated here means that there had been discussion not only with Paul but also with each other, some seconding Paul’s exposition, others bringing objections. Since the situation was thus, “they were loosing themselves,” i. e., were leaving. The imperfect tense is not inchoative, “were starting to leave,” but merely descriptive.
Since it is the last imperfect used in this scene, the force of this final verb and tense is both important and unmistakable. One might expect an aorist: “they left,” and the last imperfect used in this scene, the force of this final verb and tense is both important and unmistakable. One might expect an aorist: “they left,” and think that that was the end of the matter; but no, it was by no means the end, this imperfect (an open tense) states that leaving was not the end but only a move that was followed by much more. What did follow? The spurious v. 29 answers by adding that after Paul’s final statement “the Jews went away (ἀπῆλθον, note this aorist) while having much dispute among themselves.” But this really says nothing beyond what is already fully implied in the participial clause in regard to being disagreed. But the aorist used in this v. 29 is misleading, for it conveys the idea that this leaving with dispute ended the matter.
It did nothing of the kind. Luke has his own statement as to how this thing proceeded and ended; he has it in v. 30, 31, which see.
Luke’s account is misunderstood when it is supposed that, while the Jews were leaving, Paul detained them for an additional moment until he uttered this final word; or that this final word brought about the leaving. Ὄντες is to be construed with the imperfect ἀπελύοντο plus the aorist εἰπόντος. It was evening, time to be going. Paul closed what he had to say on this day with the final statement which Luke has preserved. Then the leaving of the Jews in disharmony with themselves took place. There is no thought that Paul tried to have the last word. There was much animated talk among the Jews as they left, and we have seen what the open imperfect conveys in regard to the future.
In order to get the force of Paul’s citation from Isaiah (6:9, 10) we must not forget that Paul’s whole exposition was a persuading from the law of Moses and the prophets. Passage after passage had been used, and it is thus that Paul adds one more as the last one. Its intent is like that of the rest, to persuade. But it would persuade by means of the warning example of the unbelieving fathers. Paul does not say that Isaiah prophesied concerning his present Jewish hearers. God sent Isaiah with a dire message to the Jews of the prophet’s day (“to your fathers”).
Paul intends to say to his present Jewish hearers: “It will pay you to think twice about what God had Isaiah tell those fathers of yours!” Why? History at times repeats itself. Paul means: “Let no Jew today repeat the mistake of those fathers so that Isaiah’s words would apply also to him!” For this is true as we see from Matt. 13:14, 15, and again from John 12:40, 41, where Jesus used this same word of Isaiah’s: it includes all those who in later years did and still now do what those obdurate Jewish fathers did in Isaiah’s day. All later obdurates place themselves into the same class with those fathers and thus bring on a new fulfillment of the prophet’s words. When Zahn thinks that Paul avoids identifying himself with Isaiah so as not to leave the impression that the prophet had Paul in mind in his effort to convert the Jews, his view is unacceptable. Paul uses Isaiah’s word as history, mighty grave history.
There stands the mistake of the wicked fathers. Let no man repeat it!
Paul quotes just “one utterance”; he might have used more, but this one was enough. He names “the Holy Spirit” as though the Jews knew this Third Person of the Godhead fully. They did. The Old Testament revealed the Trinity. In the days of the Baptist we find no Jew objecting to the Three Persons. The Jews had not yet become Unitarian.
Here we again have the entire doctrine of Verbal Inspiration in most simple language. “The Holy Spirit made utterance through Isaiah, the prophet, by saying.” The thing is a fact, just a fact. “Theory”? no theory nor hypothesis appear. The Holy Spirit is the speaker. He “made utterance, saying.” He used Isaiah, the prophet, as his medium, for διά states the medium. At times we read, “through the mouth of the prophet,” which makes Verbal Inspiration still clearer. The Spirit spoke what he wanted to say by using the prophet as his mouthpiece, the entire prophet with mind, heart, will, and tongue, in a way so dynamic (favorite term), so removed from anything mechanical (favorite term in objections), so little like one uses an automaton (another objection), that human language has never more clearly expressed this simple fact. If you ask how the Spirit did or could do this, we refer you to Isaiah himself or to some other man whom the Spirit inspired verbally; but we doubt that he could tell you just how the Spirit did what beyond the least question he did.
Acts 28:26
26Luke quotes the Spirit’s preamble (this is omitted as not being necessary in Matt. 13:14, 15): “Go to this people and state” (εἰπέ or εἰπόν, the imperative being written either way, B.-D. 81, 1). Note that Isaiah is told verbally just what to state and, of course, stated that and only that. By hearing they are to hear and not to undersand (συνῆτε from συνίημι, second aorist subjunctive); and by seeing (participle) they are to see and not perceive (βλέπειν, looking at something, and ἰδεῖν, actually seeing what something means; the difference in meaning is due to the tenses). The negation οὑμή is the strongest negation the Greek has and is used with subjunctives as here and with future indicatives. The subjunctives are here used in main clauses and are simply volitive futures, aorists that convey finality.
Through Isaiah the Spirit is pronouncing judgment upon the Jews of that day. So long had they refused to understand, refused to perceive. Their day of grace was at an end, judgment alone was left them. And the form of the judgment matches the form of the obdurate sin. The Word they heard and would not understand they are now not to understand; the miracles and the grace they saw and would not perceive as such they are now not to perceive. The Word that was sent to them as a savor of life unto life is now sent to them as a savor of death unto death.
This is the subsequent (not the antecedent) will of God, namely the will which takes into account man’s actions and attitude and is based on these. It is the judicial will and it pronounces judgment. It is the Spirit’s act of hardening the sinners. This is always judicial, always subsequent. The outstanding example is Pharaoh. Five times he hardened his heart, and not until then did God harden his heart for him.
This is terrible, indeed, to hear the divine verdict that we shall not understand or perceive but be forever excluded from the saving grace of the Word. Paul quotes the prophet’s word that was addressed to the fathers in order to make these Jews in Rome aware of their own danger.
Acts 28:27
27The A. V., like the Vulgate and Luther, translates the Hebrew of Isaiah as though it had the vowel pointing of imperatives, whereas the LXX, the Syriac, and the Arabic versions render it as though it had the vowel pointing of indicatives. Matthew 13:14, 15 and Luke follow the latter, which, therefore, must be correct as far as the original Hebrew and its proper vowel pointing are concerned. The Spirit states the reason for his verdict (γάρ). Those fathers had exhausted their day of grace. The aorists state the awful facts as facts. “This people’s heart did thicken,” i. e., permanently so.
Because it was encased in a thick, gross mass of fat, no effort of the Spirit reached it so as to move it in any way. It would be futile for the Spirit to try to penetrate that thick wall. He has no power of grace that is able to pierce through it. Judgment alone is left. The aorist states that the case is settled.
First the heart, and in the Scriptures this is always the center of the personality, the seat of mind, emotions, and especially also of will. Then come the ears and the eyes, the two great avenues to the heart. The Spirit uses the ears, for he operates through the Word. “With their ears they did hear heavily,” i. e., so that the Word never got to the heart. The Spirit uses the eyes so that men may see his works of grace and salvation. “Their eyes they did close.” The aorists state final, permanent acts. The Spirit finally had to give up all efforts of grace. Both channels were completely blocked.
And all this the Jews of Isaiah’s time did with the deliberate, malignant purpose: “lest, perhaps, they perceive with their eyes and with their ears hear (note the chiasm) and with their heart understand.” Eyes, ears, heart are now in reverse order. At this point the Hebrew mentions the three but only the heart and the eyes in the preceding. Those versions that add a clause in regard to ears do so interpretatively, which we may let pass, since ears are mentioned in the purpose clause. This clause makes manifest the damnableness of all fixed obduracy. The obdurate are determined not to see, hear, perceive. Jesus said regarding obdurate Jerusalem: “I would, but you would not—henceforth your house is left unto you desolate (judgment),” Matt. 23:37.
The negative purpose clause continues: “lest, perhaps, they turn again (under the Spirit’s grace), and I heal them.” The two belong together: we turn when the Lord heals. The turning is that of conversion, this verb is often used in this sense (9:35; 11:21; etc.), active with reference to our turning, passive with reference to God’s turning us. Soteriological healing is referred to, and the final verb is a future indicative after three subjunctives; in the Koine this occurs repeatedly (R. 988) so as to need no comment. Men are determined not to turn from damnation, not to be healed by the Spirit. They love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), they treat salvation as a plague What is left but judgment and doom?
Acts 28:28
28Paul’s own final statement that these Roman Jews must know that God’s salvation was commissioned to the Gentiles, and that these will, indeed, hear it (i. e., receptively, with faith), is nothing but a restatement of what this same prophet Isaiah declares in 65:1, etc.; compare Rom. 10:20, 21. The second aorist passive ἀπεστάλη is historical, for the commissioning had already been made through the prophets. And the sense is plain: because those fathers absolutely refused God’s salvation, God extended it to the Gentiles, and they will, indeed, accept it. They were now doing so. Paul is asking these Jews whether they, too, would exclude themselves as those fathers of old had done. When even the Gentiles hear, will they fail to hear?
Paul’s tone is authoritative throughout. “Well did the Spirit speak, etc. (v. 25)—be it known to you,” etc. Facts need not apologize for being what they are. Truth has its crown of authority and must be enthroned in our hearts while wearing that crown. Paul uses the neuter adjective as a noun: “this saving thing of God,” which is more concrete than the abstract noun “this salvation.”
Acts 28:29
29See under v. 25.
Acts 28:30
30After having written all the narrative imperfects, beginning in v. 23, Luke now writes the aorist although he follows it with a final imperfect. The outcome of this most important meeting with the Jews of Rome was not the fact that they went away (aorist ἀπῆλθον of the spurious v. 29) but this that Paul remained for two years in Rome, etc.
Now he remained for a whole space of two years in his own rented place and kept receiving all those coming in to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all freedom of utterance, unhindered.
As far as this great conference with the leading Jews of Rome was concerned, the end did not come on that day. It took two whole years before Paul’s case was decided by the imperial court. It was decided in his favor. It would have been strange, indeed, if, after all other Roman judges had found nothing against Paul (23:29; 24:26, etc.; 25:18, 25; 26:30, etc), the emperor’s court should have condemned him. More inexplicable still would be Luke’s failure to note with at least a final sentence or two that at the end of the two years Paul was condemned to death if such had been the case. In Phil. 1:23, etc.; 2:24; Philemon 22 (written in Rome near the end of the two years) Paul confidently expected to be freed.
Besides, we have the uncontradicted tradition that after his acquittal Paul undertook a final missionary journey which carried him to Spain; he also revisited some of the fields of his first labor immediately after his release and prior to his journey to Spain. Read also the remarks at the close of our introduction to Acts.
Because he lived in his own hired place it was possible for him to receive all the visitors who desired to come to him, and the imperfect records that he continued such receptions. We do not need the ill-attested addition “both Jews and Greeks.” As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Luke’s manner of using the tenses of the verb implies that they were among those who came again and did this repeatedly. That is enough, for men who had definitely turned to unbelief would never come again. Μίσθωμα is the price paid and only here seems to be used passively to designate that for which the price was paid. Although he was confined to his dwelling and under a soldier guard (v. 16), Paul’s great testimony in Rome went on (23:11). The Lord employed this novel way of filling Rome with direct apostolic testimony.
Acts 28:31
31Luke concludes his great account with the rhythmic participial modifiers: “preaching the kingdom of God (see v. 23, and 1:3) and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ (in 1:21, “the Lord Jesus”) with all freedom of utterance, unhindered.” This ending deserves more notice than it usually receives. It reveals the fact that Luke’s chief interest in Acts is this apostolic promulgation of the gospel and far less the person involved. To show how the apostolic testimony resounded in Rome in so strange a way especially among the Jews, is Luke’s goal. He has reached that goal and so lays down his pen.
We note the two significant verbs “preaching” (heralding) and “teaching”; both form a unit of work and are vital. Although he was a prisoner, Paul was in no way restricted; he had full παρρησία, freedom to say all and everything. Luke even adds the adverb “unhindered.” Burrus, the commander of the Praetorian Guards, placed no restrictions upon Paul. That was, indeed, remarkable, but it was the Lord’s doing. He had brought his great witness to Rome and he enabled that witness to testify freely, fully, to the glory of his Name.
We feel safe in saying that in all of Paul’s career he scored no greater success in a single day’s work than on the day which Luke describes in v. 23, etc. He converted half of the rabbis and leaders of the eleven synagogues in the capital of the world! Οἱμέν—οἱδέ (v. 24) = 50–50 according to our way of speaking. This Jewish work of Paul’s went on for two entire years. Converting the rabbis and the leaders could mean only one thing, namely that these rabbis took the gospel of Paul into their synagogues with the result that whole synagogues were converted, and the members who refused conversion withdrew to other synagogues.
The assumption that all these converted rabbis and these Jews left their synagogues and joined the original mixed congregation in Rome, is unwarranted. Four, five, perhaps even more of the eleven synagogues became Christian churches. To this great body of converted Jews in Rome the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed by Apollos after Paul’s death. See my introduction to Hebrews. See also the introduction to First Peter in regard to Peter’s work in Rome and his death in the year 64. New light is shed on the whole work done in Rome when we finally combine all the data that are available in the New Testament.
Among these data we must include Rom. 16 with all its salutations. The question is solved in regard to the composition of the original congregation in Rome, whether it was mostly Jewish (Zahn and others) or Gentile. In Rom. 16 Paul greeted all the members of the congregation. He lists all the prominent persons and tells us which are Jewish, which Gentile, and which of the Jewish members were personally known to him, also which had been converted even before he himself was converted. See my exposition of Rom. 16 for full details.
It is most remarkable that Paul should invite all the πρῶτοι of the Jews in Rome to his house, and that these leaders should come! Weigh this fact. The old congregation in Rome had left the Roman Jews severely alone. That is why the Lord spoke the order and the promise stated in 23:11. The converted Jews in the old congregation, who had come to faith in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost and after, had had a terrible experience with the Sanhedrin and the Jews of Jerusalem during the days following Stephen’s martyrdom and thus, when the congregation in Rome was formed and progressed, let the Jews in Rome alone. Moreover, the Jews living in Rome had often been turbulent so that Claudius, their friend, had been compelled to expel them from Rome (18:2). All this should be exceedingly plain.
The Lord more than fulfilled the desire of Paul to go to Rome. He gave him the greatest work among Jews to be done in Rome. What Paul did among pagan Romans we can only surmise from what Luke states in v. 30, 31. Paul’s wonderful success with the Jews in Rome is more than enough to make us praise the Lord’s Name.
Soli Deo Gloria
M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.